You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Iraq-Jordan
Zarqawi letter sez insurgency failing, wants to kill Shi’ites
2004-02-09
American officials here have obtained a detailed proposal that they conclude was written by an operative in Iraq to senior leaders of Al Qaeda, asking for help to wage a "sectarian war" in Iraq in the next months. The Americans say they believe that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian who has long been under scrutiny by the United States for suspected ties to Al Qaeda, wrote the undated 17-page document. Mr. Zarqawi is believed to be operating here in Iraq.
Something picked up in that safe house?
The document was made available to The New York Times on Sunday, with an accompanying translation made by the military. A reporter was allowed to see the Arabic and English versions and to write down large parts of the translation. The memo says extremists are failing to enlist support inside the country, and have been unable to scare the Americans into leaving. It even laments Iraq’s lack of mountains in which to take refuge. Yet mounting an attack on Iraq’s Shiite majority could rescue the movement, according to the document. The aim, the document contends, is to prompt a counterattack against the Arab Sunni minority.
This could be the rationale behind the assassination of al-Hakim in the Shi’ite holy city of An Najaf, if true. Or the Sistani hit, for that matter.
The American officials in Baghdad said they were confident the account was credible and said they had independently corroborated Mr. Zarqawi’s authorship. If it is authentic, it offers an inside account of the insurgency and its frustrations, and bears out a number of American assumptions about the strength and nature of religious extremists — but it also charts out a battle to come. Yet other interpretations may be possible, including that it was written by some other insurgent, but one who exaggerated his involvement.
"Shave, sir?"
"Thank you, Occam."
Still, a senior United States intelligence official in Washington said, "I know of no reason to believe the letter is bogus in any way." He said the letter was seized in a raid on a known Qaeda safe house in Baghdad, and did not pass through Iraqi groups that American intelligence officials have said in the past may have provided unreliable information.
Oooh! First level intel! Straight from the horsie's mouth...
Without providing further specifics, the senior intelligence officer said there was additional information pointing to the idea that Al Qaeda was considering mounting or had already mounted attacks on Shiite targets in Iraq. "This is not the only indication of that," the official said. The intercepted letter also appears to be the strongest indication since the American invasion last March that Mr. Zarqawi remains active in plotting attacks, the official said.
Active operations against the Shias would also tend to downplay Iranian involvement with Qaeda...
According to the American officials here, the Arabic-language document was discovered in mid-January when a Qaeda suspect was arrested in Iraq. Under interrogation, the Americans said, the suspect identified Mr. Zarqawi as the author of the document. The man arrested was carrying it on a CD to Afghanistan, the Americans said, and intended to deliver it to people they described as the "inner circle" of Al Qaeda’s leadership. That presumably refers to Osama bin Laden and his deputy, Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri.
Ayman communes with the spirit of Binny...
The Americans declined to identify the suspect. But the discovery of the disc coincides with the arrest of Hassan Ghul, a Pakistani described by American officials at the time as a courier for the Qaeda network. Mr. Ghul is believed to be the first significant member of that network to have been captured inside Iraq. The document is written with a rhetorical flourish. It calls the Americans "the biggest cowards that God has created," but at the same time sees little chance that they will be forced from Iraq.
Tough, getting rid of cowards when they're determined, isn't it?
Posted by:Dan Darling

#24  LH, It would be intersting to know were the memo was going, postal wise. To say it was addressed to AQ leaves a...?
Posted by: Lucky   2004-2-10 1:51:39 AM  

#23  Anonymous2U,

Perhaps that is why the brass are recently so confident they will nab Binny by ballot time.
Posted by: Mr. Davis   2004-2-9 11:07:25 PM  

#22  Lucky - it looks like the main insurgency so far has been Baathist, though that is (all too) slowly fading. Zarqawi, working as agent for AQ was hoping to stir up a non-baathist Sunni arab resistance. Success has been limited. So alternate strategy is to hit Shiites and Kurds, hoping to provoke violent Shia/Kurdish backlash, which would push sunni arabs into the welcoming arms of Zarqawi and AQ. This seems clear from the memo, assuming it all survives the 48 hour rule (but this IS the NYT). It also seems pretty clear that Iran is behind Al Sadr, whose strategy is to portray Sistani as in the American pocket, in contrast to himself. This puts Sistani in the position of having to show himself tough with the americans, yet still reach the compromise the shia need. Its speculation as to whether Iran and Zarqawi are in kahoots - yet given the fact that senior AQ operatives seem to be in Iran, under some form of house arrest that seems to really be disguised permission to operate freely, its just a matter of "connecting the dots" So the question becomes - is there any reason, religious or ideological, why Iran COULDNT be working with Zarqawi to kill Iraqi Shiites? I think we've come to a consensus here that there isnt. This still doesnt prove it 100%, and i suspect that if they have theyve covered their tracks very carefuly - certainly Zarqawi doesnt seem to mention Iran support in this memo - then of course Iran might be working with senior AQ, and Zarqawi might be out of the loop on Iranian support - precisely to avoid a leak if hes caught. Of course that would mean no direct cooperation between Zarqawi and Al sadr - which makes sense to me.
Posted by: liberalhawk   2004-2-9 4:32:43 PM  

#21  "BTW, there are/were other ethnicities in organized crime."

Yup - even back in the heyday of the South Italian mob, there were Jews, Irish, etc. More recently there have been chinese, russians, hispanics, etc. So stop picking on the Eyetalians.



Posted by: liberalhawk   2004-2-9 4:22:28 PM  

#20  SOT - I think you are absolutely right about the Qom - Najaf power struggle. Iraq is the real center of Shia Islam. Since Saddam was in power and shut down Najaf, all of the Shia big guys there, including Sistani, had to head to Qom. All of the money from the faithful followed them. The Iranians don't want to see that go away.

Nevertheless, I think the paramount Iranian goal is the one that LH mentioned...do anything to make the US fail, even if it means killing a bunch of Shia's.

Posted by: remote man   2004-2-9 4:17:16 PM  

#19  Pappy-- ethnic shmethnic. Weren't Don Corleone and Don Barzini both Sicilian? Mobsters clash because clashing is in their DNA.

In the US, mobsters clashed only when it is/was in their interests to do so. Part of doing business. BTW, there are/were other ethnicities in organized crime.

No small surprise then if the Iranian branch of the Shi'ite mob has "issues" with the Iraqi branch of that mob. Ethnicity will do as a pretext.

Speaking from personal experience in the Middle East, you underestimate the ethnicity-factor. What ethnicity you are (Bedouin versus "fishing-Arab", for example) and where you are from is significant. I had problems in both Bahrain and Saudi-land because I "looked persian". After they found out I was of southern Italian stock, I merely had to contend with the issues a Yank faces there.

Because in the end, mobocrats only know one rule: keeping their mob on top of the heep.

I'll agree with that. But there's no familia with this group. They tend to use those they consider lesser and expendable before they use their own.
Posted by: Pappy   2004-2-9 3:02:40 PM  

#18  now i have a headache and am nauseous--sadr is a childish hothead and islamist theocrat--he's too young to get respect from the hawza in najaf as a scholar--its like a physics major at boston university against einstein--sistani being einstein in this tortured analogy--so the wilayat khomeini boys from qom in iran are allies with the young theocrat and would like nothing better than to give sistani an early trip to paradise--he's bad for business
Posted by: SON OF TOLUI   2004-2-9 2:56:30 PM  

#17  Sistani's push for early elections is a direct threat to the Sunni's, no? Whether that is the cause of his attempted assasination or as a pretext by mobacracy types to stir up retribution against the Sunnies is interesting. So does this place AQ as an Iranian dependant and is the current conflict in Iraq the battle ground for AQ/Iran and not a baathist resurgence? Or is it all combined?
Posted by: Lucky   2004-2-9 1:39:11 PM  

#16  LH, I would add that the Iranian Shiites would just as soon have any credible and independent thinking Iraqi Shiite leaders take an infinite lunch break. Their puppet appears to be Al Sadr.
Posted by: Super Hose   2004-2-9 9:59:30 AM  

#15  good comments guys - youre thinking strategically. Yes 1. The iranian blackhats would probably use any cannon fodder to keep power 2. They probably value Iraqi shiites even less than their own citizens on both ethnic and ideological grounds 3. Yes, their main goal is to take down the US and keep Iraq from being the "first domino" - they'll cooperate with anyone or kill anyone to do that.
Posted by: liberalhawk   2004-2-9 9:46:35 AM  

#14  I think I need to issue a fatwah against irony on Rantburg. Given your propensity to take fatwahs really seriously!
Posted by: phil_b   2004-2-9 9:21:31 AM  

#13  muslims targeting muslims. And then the truth is spun so much so as to make the US (and of course, Israel) the culprit in the war on the ROP(tm).
Posted by: PlanetDan   2004-2-9 8:54:45 AM  

#12  All the speculation ignores the elephant in the middle of the room:

Starting a war between Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq would give the US a black eye and tie up -- possibly endanger the existence of -- large amounts of the US military. That's what al'Qaeda and the Iranians want to see.
Posted by: Robert Crawford   2004-2-9 6:53:46 AM  

#11  SOT-- didn't say that Sistani was a mobocrat. Just said that the Iranian Mullahs are and so can be expected to cook up pretexts to oppose anybody who threatens "their" mob. If Sistani is as you describe him-- which I think he may very well be-- all the more reason for the Mullahs in Teheran to want to destroy him. Allah forbid that among the Shi'ites there be a respected cleric opposed to rule by Mullah!

Catch my drift?


Posted by: Wide-eyed-CIA-guy   2004-2-9 4:06:59 AM  

#10  puhleeze--sistani comes from the quietist school of shia clergy-- believes in separation of mosque and church--he's an enemy of the theocrats from qom--who love the political power and the ability to score money from side deals with the bazzaries--islamic politics gives me a headache
Posted by: SON OF TOLUI   2004-2-9 3:31:35 AM  

#9  p.s. apparently irony is dead on Rantburg

Thanks 4Iv, you rang a bell... Come to think of it, haven't the Mullahs used Iranian Shi'ites as cannon fodder?

Pappy-- ethnic shmethnic. Weren't Don Corleone and Don Barzini both Sicilian? Mobsters clash because clashing is in their DNA. No small surprise then if the Iranian branch of the Shi'ite mob has "issues" with the Iraqi branch of that mob. Ethnicity will do as a pretext. But if that fails, they'll cook up some other pretext such as "doctinal differences", whose holy sites are holier, whose beards are longer or whatever. Because in the end, mobocrats only know one rule: keeping their mob on top of the heep.

Posted by: Wide-eyed-CIA-guy   2004-2-9 3:19:54 AM  

#8  4th, of course, Irony could never die here. Not going to happen.
Iranian Persian Shi'ites consider themselves to be different than Iraqi Arab Shi'ites.
And when it comes down to it, they're both hated by the Wahhab Sunnis (Al Queda, the Saudis and Baathists) who think that the Shiites are "polytheists" and kuffir-lovers (Jews, Christians, etc.).
So, yeah, what's a little ethnic and theological difference between Muslims when you're fighting the Great Satan?
Posted by: Jennie Taliaferro   2004-2-9 3:12:30 AM  

#7  p.s. apparently irony is dead on Rantburg
Posted by: 4thInfVet   2004-2-9 2:22:58 AM  

#6  Yeahhhhh... "ethnic" differences. Not that the 'persians' would like to see every arab wiped off the face of the planet. Nope, nuh huh. No conflict there, ever.
Posted by: 4thInfVet   2004-2-9 2:18:48 AM  

#5  But how could the Mullahs be supporting someone conniving to use Iraqi Shi'ites as cannon fodder? Makes no sense to me...

Ethnic differences. I suspect that, to the Iranian (Persian) mullahs, the Iraqi Shi'ites are Arab and thus lesser.
Posted by: Pappy   2004-2-9 2:01:24 AM  

#4  Powerline via Crooow postulates this:

It's tempting to speculate, however, that Zarqawi himself may be in custody. First they raid his safe house in Baghdad; then they leak the news that they found a seven-pound block of cyanide salts there; now we have a memo written by Zarqawi to his al Qaeda bosses. It could be a coincidence, but it seems likely that the U.S. military has captured Zarqawi already, or, at a minimum, is closing in on him.
Posted by: Anonymous2U   2004-2-9 1:43:27 AM  

#3   Zarqawi runs back and forth between Iraq and Iran and his primary instrument in Iraq (Ansar al-Islam) was recently a participant at an Iranian terrorist summit. I don't pretend to understand for a moment the mullahs' rationale here unless maybe they figure he'll whack Sistani in the process.

Two possibilities:

1) Mullahs don't give a shit about the Iraqi Shi'ites, they're too busy keeping their own house in order and need al-Qaeda muscle to do it.

2) Zarqawi never intended this letter to be seen by the mullahs, it was meant for internal distribution within al-Qaeda's top brass alone.
Posted by: Dan Darling   2004-2-9 1:26:20 AM  

#2  Am I misrembering-- or isn't Zarqawi thought to have ties to Teheran? But how could the Mullahs be supporting someone conniving to use Iraqi Shi'ites as cannon fodder?

Makes no sense to me...

Posted by: Wide-eyed-CIA-guy   2004-2-9 1:18:18 AM  

#1  It even laments Iraq’s lack of mountains in which to take refuge.

Iraq has plenty of mountains, although they are full of Kurds.
Posted by: phil_b   2004-2-9 12:57:05 AM  

00:00